Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd, Represented By Its Executive Director – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Water Authority, Represented By Its Managing Director and Ors. – Respondents
WA No. 811 Of 2023, WA No. 813 Of 2023
Decided On : 19-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 12, 14 - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, Rule 27 - E-tender notice – Pre-qualified to get work - Petitioners are before Court in these appeals, invoking provisions under Section 5 of Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Appellant does not have required experience as per clause 7.17.1.2.8 of Ext.P2 general terms and conditions of Ext.P1 e-tender notification - Para 74.
Finding of the Court: Appellant in both writ appeals does not have required experience as per clause 7.17.1.2.8 of Ext.P2 general terms and conditions of Ext.P1 e-tender notification, which is evident from Ext.P6 clarification issued by Water Works Engineer, Water Supply Department, Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that, though technology prescribed in tender process in respect of work covered by Ext.P3 work completion certificate was modern technology with clarifiers of upward flow sludge blanket with plate settlers, tube settlers have been installed as per instructions of department, as per site conditions - Interference is warranted in these writ appeals filed under Section 5 of Kerala High Court Act, on impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petitions filed by appellants to assert their own rights, since any judicial relief at instance of a party who does not fulfil requisite criteria is legally impermissible.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Anil K. Narendran, J.)
1. Since common issues are involved, these writ appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.A.No.811 of 2023:- The appellant, namely, Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., filed W.P.(C) No.10993 of 2023 before this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 pre-qualification approval of tenders dated 25.03.2023 issued by the 4th respondent Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PH Circle, Kozhikode to the extent it disqualified the petitioner in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 regarding Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) Phase II : Water Supply Scheme (WSS) to Chathamangalam and adjoining panchayats in Kozhikode District. The further reliefs sought for are a declaration that the petitioner is prequalified to get the work tendered in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 and Ext.P2 notice inviting tender (Volume I); a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P16 to the extent it prequalified the 5th and 6th respondents, namely, Midland Engineering and Contracting Company and one Joseph John and the resultant award of tender in favour of the said respondents; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the tender based on the rate quoted by the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 tender notifications.
3. W.A.No.813 of 2023:- The appellant, namely, Reena Engineering and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed W.P.(C)No.10996 of 2023 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P18 pre-qualification approval of tenders dated 25.03.2023 issued by the 4th respondent Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PH Circle, Kozhikode to the extent it disqualified the petitioner in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 regarding JJM Phase II : WSS to Chathamangalam and adjoining panchayats in Kozhikode District. The further reliefs sought for are a declaration that the petitioner is prequalified to get the work tendered in Ext.P1 e-tender notice dated 13.09.2022 and Ext.P2 notice inviting tender (Volume I); a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P18 to the extent it prequalified the 5th and 6th respondents, namely, Midland Engineering and Contracting Company and one Joseph John and the resultant award of tender in favour of the said respondents; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the tender based on the rate quoted by the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 tender notifications. The appellant submitted bid pursuant to Ext.P1 e-tender notification, in a joint venture with Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in W.A.No.811 of 2023.
4. By the judgment dated 11.04.2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.10993 & 10996 of 2023 holding that the Special Committee for pre-qualification approval has examined the entire pros and cons of the matter and arrived at its own conclusions, taking into account the contentions advanced and the documents produced by the respective bidders. Even though the writ petitioners have raised contentions with respect to the ineligibility of respondents 5 and 6 to prequalify, it cannot be said that the evaluation done by the Special Committee is in any way illegal, arbitrary, perverse or out of any extraneous consideration or vitiated by mala fides. The Special Committee has evaluated the past experience of the writ petitioners and has arrived at its own findings, taking into account the documents produced and therefore, it cannot be said that the said evaluation is in any way bad, illegal or arbitrary. The learned Single Judge noticed that a full-fledged hearing and participation was given to all the bidders by the Special Committee consisting of technically qualified persons and the writ petitioners have not established any case of illegality, arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Special Comm
Courts should refrain from interfering with tender evaluation decisions unless there are clear legal infirmities or arbitrariness in the process.
Tender evaluation must prioritize relevant experience and qualifications as stipulated in the notice inviting tenders, with courts deferring to specialized committees unless clear errors occur.
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
The court emphasized the importance of fair and transparent decision-making in tender evaluations, asserting judicial review is warranted when actions of administrative bodies exhibit arbitrariness b....
Compliance with tender requirements is essential for bid validity; failure to provide adequate documentation results in disqualification.
The court affirmed that judicial restraint is crucial when reviewing administrative decisions in tender processes, emphasizing the committee's discretion over technical qualifications.
The court reinforced the principle that judicial review of tender decisions requires a demonstration of manifest arbitrariness or illegality for interference, prioritizing the expertise of evaluation....
The court ruled that tender eligibility criteria must explicitly state disqualifications, allowing joint venture experience to be considered for bidder qualifications, ensuring clarity and fairness i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
